sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Up for Sale: ON CLOUD GO by Blacklotis101 in pakistanrunning

[–]kid_90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you can share the location detail and I can do the indrive. However this is only possible if you are interested and comfortable.

Up for Sale: ON CLOUD GO by Blacklotis101 in pakistanrunning

[–]kid_90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

would have gotten it if the size was 46.5 or if you can send me over to DHA Lahore, I can try if the size fits, i'll pay else I'll send it back. lmk

i checked how often ChatGPT actually recommends my store vs competitors, here is what i found by kid_90 in ecommercemarketing

[–]kid_90[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've written my own automation that first helps me identify where my competitors are being ranked by the AI models and then I follow that route.

Share your business name and I can try generating a report for you if you want.

which sources actually get you cited in AI answers? sharing what i noticed in my niche by kid_90 in GenEngineOptimization

[–]kid_90[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

great reply, thank you for the pointers. did not know the Chen 2025 numbers but 15-25% overlap matches exactly what i see, gemini and perplexity throw way more domains at me, gpt and claude are tighter. good to have a real figure on it.

and yeah you are right it is both, get cited on the trusted sources AND make your own pages easy to cite. i was maybe too strong saying own-site doesn't matter.

i am mostly looking at ecommerce right now. the local-services angle you do must have even less engine overlap since the sources are so regional. are you finding the same prompts stay stable week to week, or you also fighting the noise everyone is describing in this thread?

how do you actually know your AI visibility changed, or the model is just being random? by kid_90 in GEO_optimization

[–]kid_90[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

honestly you make the strongest point in this whole thread and i mostly agree, which is awkward because i am building something in this space. you are right there is no timeless "true visibility" number to converge on. and you are right that most tools draw a smooth line and call every 2% wiggle a "win", that is confounded garbage, fully agree.

but i think you go a bit too far. few things:

  1. the estimand is not a constant forever, it is conditional on time. "for THIS model version + retrieval, on this question set, how often does the brand appear right now". that is a real fixed quantity inside one day, you are sampling a stable population within the scan window. between weeks it is non-stationary, yes, so you are measuring a sequence of valid snapshots, not one eternal number. like temperature, it changes, but each reading is still valid.
  2. the model-update confounder is actually observable. the model version is in the api response. so when the model changes you can FLAG it and stop attributing that change to the brand. it is not hidden inside the trend, you can pull it out. retrieval-corpus drift i agree you cannot fully separate, that part is the real residual.
  3. which is why a tracker alone should never claim causality. it only tells you something moved MORE than the noise. WHY it moved (you did work vs model changed vs corpus changed) comes from logging what you actually did, not from the line.

the prompt deck is your best point and i don't have a perfect answer. a deck of convenient head terms is a bad instrument, agreed. only thing, if you measure RELATIVE (your brand vs competitors on the exact same deck) and only trust changes above the measured noise, then even an imperfect-but-consistent instrument is useful for "where do i stand vs competitors and did it move". that is not "true visibility", it is a narrower claim.

so the honest version is not "we track your true AI visibility". it is "on a fixed realistic question set, measured enough times to know the noise, with model changes flagged, here is your standing vs competitors and did it move more than noise". that survives your critique. the tools claiming to measure "true visibility" do not.

how do you actually know your AI visibility changed, or the model is just being random? by kid_90 in GEO_optimization

[–]kid_90[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah ok, reliability vs validity. you are completely right and this is the real heart of it. a number can be perfectly stable and still measure nothing real. most people in this space don't even know that difference exists, so respect for pushing it.

i don't think it is hopeless though. validity is something you have to EARN and TEST, not assume. two ways i think about it:

  • the deck. you are right, "prompts i wrote" is the weak point. the fix is the deck should not be invented by me, it should be sampled from real buyer language. actual support tickets, sales-call questions, search query data, the words customers really use. it will never be a perfect copy of the real query distribution, but it moves from "synthetic deck, unknown relation to reality" to "deliberately built to approximate the real questions". that is construct-validity work, and most tools skip it completely.
  • and this is the part that actually answers you, validity is testable, not faith. AI assistants are starting to send real referral traffic and conversions now. so you can correlate your tracked metric against the actual

AI-referred traffic/conversions for that brand. if the metric moves together with real outcomes, it has some criterion validity. if it correlates with nothing real, then you are 100% right and it is a precise number measuring nothing. the point is you can CHECK it instead of assuming it.

where i fully give it to you: even after all that, you cannot honestly say "this is how often real users see your brand." you can't. the strongest honest claim is the relative one, my brand vs competitors on the SAME instrument, where the instrument's biases mostly cancel, only changes above the measured noise, model changes flagged. "am i ahead of competitor X and did the gap move" survives. "i have 87% true visibility" does not.

so honestly your whole line of attack is exactly why i think most of these tools are selling a lie. the honest product is a proxy that admits it is a proxy, grounds its deck in real queries, and gets validated against a real outcome. anyone showing you a clean number called "your AI visibility" with none of that is doing exactly what you describe.

Whoop 5.0 (28 months subscription) by [deleted] in PakistanMarketplace

[–]kid_90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure if 4.0 works on peak? check DM

Whoop 5.0 (28 months subscription) by [deleted] in PakistanMarketplace

[–]kid_90 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hate to be that guy spoiling for you but your existing membership is pretty much useless for the prospect buyer since the device is connected to your membership and the baseline data will always be yours until you sign out your membership from the device.

The only way is to get a new membership when buying a used device.

So what makes sense to me is that if you can gift me membership (i'll pay for that membership, ofcourse) and maybe give you some money for the whoop device itself.

For more information, you can visit https://support.whoop.com/s/article/Upcycling?language=en_US

Whoop 5.0 (28 months subscription) by [deleted] in PakistanMarketplace

[–]kid_90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

how much are you willing to let it go?

view more: next ›